Paph. gigantifolium & CITES

[gore42]

This is interesting because I spoke with Roddy Gable (Chief, Division of Scientific Authority U.S. Fish & Wildlife) about 3 years ago while trying to determine whether it would be legal to import Paph gigantifolium flasks from Taiwan. In doing so, I mentioned that the species was already being bred in the US. He said something like "Oh, you mean Sam's plants? We know the situation behind them and they're not really legal." He explained that since Sam thought that he had received them legally, that F&W weren't going to do anything about it. Clearly, they changed their minds. And he gave me some details about the history, most of which I've forgotten, so I won't try to repeat them here.

Incidentally, I was under the impression that Antec IS NOT a rescue center, but that they simply get access to seed or plants from a rescue center. When a rescue center gets rescue plants, they can't sell them... but they can sell the offsrping. Let me know if I'm mistaken.

As Ever
Matthew Gore

 

[likespaphs]

from the fws website:
http://www.fws.gov/international/DMA_DSA/CITES/pdf/prc.pdf

 

[NYEric]

Line up all the FWS in front of a group of different paph seedlings and let the ones who can ID them live; all the rest...

 

[likespaphs]

Line up all the FWS in front of a group of different paph seedlings and let the ones who can ID them live; all the rest...

hey now, play nice....
(i dunno that members of slippertalk would do any better unless we have to pick paphs from phals or somethin')

 

[SlipperFan]

hey now, play nice....
(i dunno that members of slippertalk would do any better unless we have to pick paphs from phals or somethin')

But we are not the supposed experts, and people's fates are not in our hands.

 

[NYEric]

We don't do foolish things; because we don't have the authority and power to do them!

 

[Rick]

from the fws website:
http://www.fws.gov/international/DMA_DSA/CITES/pdf/prc.pdf

Well that confirms some of the assumptions / suppositions I was making.

Non for profit Institutions, and it looks like you agree to a whole shipment or nothing, and if the shipment is 100 hybrid phals then I guess you rescue them from Home Depotoke:oke:

I think Sam is in a better place for not having to deal with that. Maybe there is a segment of the plant rescue system that is more like the Zoo species survival plan that would be more appropriate.

 

[Roth]

Back to the regulation matter, anyway, many paphs species are not "legal" per se but are accepted to be legal

The best example is rothschildianum. There are no legal origin plants anywhere....

Before Sheila Collenette collection, rothschildianum was extinct in culture, there are no evidences, no papers, nothing, that this species was alive before that. The last known recorded instance of a rothschildianum blooming was in 1936.

The claims that Mt Millais is an 'old' roth is wrong. The best proof is that there are at least 3 sister plants, Mt Millais, Commander and... Collette that was a mistake for colleNEtte... And discussing with the former owner of colleNEtte, he confirmed that he got his plant at the beginning of the 60;s. So why Mt Millais and Commander story would be different?

In fact, someone asked me that dumb question, officially, about the legality, and why people would claim that some roths are from "last century"

Here is the reply.

The English, grateful that the local tribes of Sabah fought against the Japaneses, give them FULL CONTROL RIGHT on several huge areas, by a tribal law act. This happened at the beginning of the 50's. Therefore it was illegal to remove any plant from what we now know as the Kinabalu National park... I will find back that act someday, I got a paper copy, but once I found it as a PDF on internet...

Loong time after that, when CITES entered in force, the first legal roths ever exported by the Malaysia governement were in 1999... The legality can still be questioned, because Sabah apparently never agreed to have any collection of rothschildianum. The various roths collected and exported/propagated by botanical gardens do not appear in the CITES of export or import, but for sure they should all have been recorded. To say that some of thoses instances were maybe not that legal is an understatement...

Never before, and never, ever, from Sabah. No roths have been exported from Sabah legally apparently, as confirmed by a letter from the Sabah wildlife to me in 2001...

There is no trace of legal export from 1977 - start of CITES enforcement in Malaysia - until now from Sabah, for any purposes, whatever it means, and anyway, there has never been any permit to collect roths properly issued. It should be both from the Sabah Governement AND the tribal management authority, that's the law.

Maybe the English realized that, as they gave the benefit of all the wildlife in Sabah to the local tribes, hence most likely the claim of pre-Collenette, centuries old roths. I searched for many years for real ones, and so far I never found a claim that could be sustained...

That's why it is better sometimes not to open the pandora box. If the rules in the US keep being against tissue cultures seedlings from "illegal parents", there will be not that many species "legal". CITES might need to be changed to accept that maybe a couple illegal plants can make a lot of nice seedlings that will protect the species in the wild...

On another note, the sanderianum Deep Pockets and Jacob's Ladder were illegal, but the FWS at that time agreed Terry Root to keep thoses plants, that came from Azadehdel, and to propagate them, even if they were clearly illegal.

 

[Rick]

I'm kind of confused by your post Sanderianum, but maybe for clarification I will ask your definition of "legal" with reference to when CITES placed slippers on CITES 1 status (which I thought was about 1986 or later).

So from a CITES outlook they don't appear to take jurisdiction about how anything got to the US before that time. So unless you are saying that most of the present day seedling grown paphs are "illegal" because none of the parent stock was imported before 1986 (if that is the date I remember) then I'm not sure if I understand your post at all.

And I believe they do understand that a handful of collected plants can make a lot of nice seedlings. As in the present case of gigantifolium they (CITES) realizes that there are a bunch of seedlings from Sam's breeding that are loose in hobbiest cultivation now. I'm not aware that Sam has incurred any loss other than the confiscation of any gigantifolium he had on the premisses (including seedlings), and they presently do not seem to be interested in tracking down all the seedlings that were sold. This seems pretty lenient from what has been done to others in the past with illegal CITES plants in their collections.

 

[Eric Muehlbauer]

I can't speak for any other country other than the US, but here basically any paph species that was in this country prior to the 1990 ban on collected paphs is legal. So rothchildianum is completely legal here...Even tigrinum, which was described after the ban but based on plants that had already arrived by 1990, is completely legal. When delanatii was rediscovered, it was only a short time before plants of Vietnamese origin were all over the US, even though they were technically illegal...even seedlings.... For US growers, its really a legal issue for paph species that were discovered after 1990. Take care, Eric

 

[Rick]

I can't speak for any other country other than the US, but here basically any paph species that was in this country prior to the 1990 ban on collected paphs is legal. So rothchildianum is completely legal here...Even tigrinum, which was described after the ban but based on plants that had already arrived by 1990, is completely legal. When delanatii was rediscovered, it was only a short time before plants of Vietnamese origin were all over the US, even though they were technically illegal...even seedlings.... For US growers, its really a legal issue for paph species that were discovered after 1990. Take care, Eric

I was searching for the exact date too, and got 2 slightly different answers.
1) January 1, 1990, or
2) Before 1989 (without stating end or beginning of the year).

For those who picked up Koopowitz's book Tropical Slipper Orchids, he has a fairly detailed chapter on the how what and whens of the CITES embargo of slipper orchids. I googled "CITES I slipper orchids" and got a free peek of that chapter.

 

[Roth]

I can't speak for any other country other than the US, but here basically any paph species that was in this country prior to the 1990 ban on collected paphs is legal. So rothchildianum is completely legal here...Even tigrinum, which was described after the ban but based on plants that had already arrived by 1990, is completely legal. When delanatii was rediscovered, it was only a short time before plants of Vietnamese origin were all over the US, even though they were technically illegal...even seedlings.... For US growers, its really a legal issue for paph species that were discovered after 1990. Take care, Eric

At present time the issue in the US is for after 90's paphs, but nothing can prevent FWS, if they are not carefully teached and explained about the risks of what they are doing, to claim backwards that this or that species is, finally, illegal... I just give an example about rothschildianum, propagated in quantities worldwide as everyone knows, but that is definitely in a "shady" position regarding legality. Even I could not find any CITES related informations from Malaysia to England for Kew plants in the 80's...

Anyway the plants prior to 1990 and after 1977, coming from Malaysia, must have been exported as rothschildianum, appendix II as an example, if people really wanted to "enforce" the law. And I clearly demonstrate that it has been, at all time since the early 50's, considered to be a criminal act to collect rothschildianum, for one reason or the other. And before that, rothschildianum was lost in cultivation, completely. Therefore, rothschildianum could be deemed to be illegal worldwide if the people wanted to be "strict". Of course, it would be crazy to do this.

Some cases have been related to illegal import of paphs as Appendix II species, in Europe especially. And in the USA, they seized roths and sands in the 80's because they were illegally collected, even if some had App II permits, as Malaysia claimed they NEVER allowed anyone to collect roths and sands at any time. That's part of the history... If we follow the law strictly.

Back to Sam, the thing is that he has tried to propagate gigantifolium from a plant imported with a CITES - note that the exporter from Malaysia never got any problem after the FWS canceled thoses permits...

But if he was someone to be punished, gigantifolium is available all the time from Indo as wild plants, USD7/plant, minimum order of 100 plants, 4 days delay for the delivery, fresh from Sulawesii - The name of the supplier is Api, for thoses who do want to challenge my claim...

Sam would not propagate something that is so easy to get as big plants if he did not want to do everything right...

That's where the USFWS is completely off target, there ARE collections such as that that enter US, I know it, because I met some Americans in Surabaya couple of years ago, and FWS never found them.

If they really want to protect the species, it is better to target thoses plants, not the origin of breeding stock of tissue cultured plants...

 

[tenman]

The chief problem is the refusal of the authorities to accept that conservation is promoted by the propagation and dispersal of seed-grown plants, including the importation of flasks, and that it is counter-productive to prohibit these activities rather than promote them. The US is the chief culprit in this as apparently all the folks involved from the top down are, in fact, self-important bureaucratic idiots.

Confiscating plants which were previously accepted as legal after nine years is itself a foolish and criminal act. Aside from being just outright stupid.

 

[Ernie]

I've met and spoke at length with Roddy Gabel, Chief of the Division of Scientific Authority in the International Affairs Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, on several occassions. He is a Paph grower. I know he is frustrated by the situation. Others may know more, maybe I've been snowed, but I think he is doing his best to get seed-raised plants of the naughty species in our hands within the limitations of CITES. Problem is that other countries interpret the Convention a lot looser to meet their economic needs. The biggest point of contention is that flasks are legal to trade *as long as the plantlets in the flask were created by legally-obtained parents*. US takes this verbatim, some countries disregard it, others are on the fence.

-Ernie

 

[swamprad]

We've all lamented the current state of affairs for so long, and it is so obviously wrong and counter-productive. I just wish I knew what we could do to change the status quo.

 

[Ernie]

We've all lamented the current state of affairs for so long, and it is so obviously wrong and counter-productive. I just wish I knew what we could do to change the status quo.

Well, ya see, this could be a catch 22. If the US fusses because we follow the rules, it would blow if the rest of the world suddenly fell in line. Then no one would have them.

-Ernie

 

[NYEric]

Road trip!

 

[bench72]

If the US fusses because we follow the rules, it would blow if the rest of the world suddenly fell in line. Then no one would have them.

yeah... get George W to call all the countries that allow lab propagated orchids as an axis of evil!

 

[Kavanaru]

*as long as the plantlets in the flask were created by legally-obtained parents*.

maybe not misunderstanding but having it written different!? oke:

I am not sure whether the CITES states the sentence above in the USA, but the copy of CITES I have here does not state anything about flask fromlegally-obtained parents... it is written: "(For all of the following Appendix-I species, seedling or tissue cultures obtained in vitro, in solid or liquid media, transported in sterile containers are not subject to the provisions of the Convention)"

in another section is also clearly stated: "4. Specimens of an animal species included in Appendix I bred in captivity for commercial purposes, or of a plant species included in Appendix I artificially propagated for commercial purposes, shall be deemed to be specimens of species included in Appendix II."

so, I think is not the rest of the countries misunderstanding the law, but USA applying it even stronger than what it is, as already mentioned before in this forum...

This would then allowed flask from seeds collected in the wild without collecting the plants, which makes sense if the idea is to protect the natural populations, and suppporting legal trade and artificial propagation... IMO

 

[SlipperKing]

Ramon,
The copy I read from the net states the same as you have pointed out. I just didn't know whether there was more added onto the statments you mention at a later date. Resticting artifically propagated plants more by have legal parent plants. I believe some cry baby complained that the propagated plants were available too quickly to of come from legal plants and they had to of harvested wild seed capsules inorder to get them to market so fast. SO WHAT! One season of wild collected seed capsules would of done the samething, pressure off of the wild population. Right?